Re: [PATCH] Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in scram_SaltedPassword loop.
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
To: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-11-22T13:30:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, > When the scram_iterations value is set too large, the backend would hang for > a long time. And we can't use Ctrl+C to cancel this query, cause the loop don't > process signal interrupts. > > Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS within the loop of scram_SaltedPassword > to handle any signals received during this period may be a good choice. > > I wrote a patch to solve this problem. What's your suggestions? Thanks for the patch. It sort of makes sense. I wonder though if we should limit the maximum number of iterations instead. If somebody specified 1_000_000+ iteration this could also indicate a user error. If we want to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS inside the loop I think a brief comment would be appropriate. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
Commits
-
Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in scram_SaltedPassword() for the backend
- 07cb7bc1c7a8 16.2 landed
- 14f2f9eb1a15 17.0 landed